<p>so I was talking to my sister today. We were wondering… </p>
<p>Her H, after 30 yrs., ran off w/ a person who worked in H’s office. She is 20 yrs younger, has, “known” and admitted, fake boobs, fake blond hair, etc. My Sis was devastated because she and H were best friends, married for love and had, until the last yr., a great marriage. He took his orthopedics’s surgery practice elsewhere, w/ his new love, and abandoned my sis and their 3 children, all grown. He also abandoned his kids college loans which he told each kid he would pay when they where applying for schools. The loans are in the kids names. His lawyer said to forget them since they were not in his name.</p>
<p>This betrayal was the most unexpected and devastating as can be believed. This has made us skeptical about relationships and men in general. DO NOT WANT TO BASH MEN.</p>
<p>But given all the recent press about infidelity, I wonder if we should all be on alert!! </p>
<p>And how do you know for sure. My sis thought she did. She and H talked about couples they knew splitting and what went wrong.</p>
<p>Personal observation: The incidence of cheating for both genders is pretty much equal until middle age, at which time men accelerate while women decelerate their cheating activities. It’s called instinctive behavior.</p>
<p>Those kids need to sue their dad for the costs of their loans. Since there are 3 of them and only one of him, the kids will likely be believed. </p>
<p>What an a$$. </p>
<p>However, advise your sis to be the “better person,” not the “bitter person.” While she may never want/take her ex back, if she’s pleasant, likely this relationship with the new woman will not last. Most men do not stay with the women that they leave their wives for.</p>
<p>Most men would cheat if they could get away with it. And by getting away with it I’m not only referring to getting “caught”. I also mean having the access to available women who don’t need to attach a “relationship” or “getting to know” a person just to have sex.
I think the problem, in our society and culture, is that to many people don’t question the system of marriages and relationships. Anything that can be had in a “committed relationship” or “marriage” can be had without the need to be committed or married. If you can’t, then what does that say about the “relationship” or “deep friendship” or “whatever you want to call it”?
There is a utility to sex. There is a utility to spending your life with a person. There is a utility to wanting someone to have your children with. There is a utility to having a person you explore interests or activities with. The problem is when you join all these things together and you expect one person to fulfill all these utilities, forever or for a majority of your life. People don’t usually “cheat” on their friends, because friends fulfill particular utilities(maybe even more than one) relative to our lives. If one wouldn’t expect ONE friend to fulfill the “college confidential talk” utility, the “lets go watch a movie” utility, the “eating out” utility, the “gossiping” utility, the “lets talk about our problems” utility, and any other type of utility, why would anyone live their life differently in respect to their romantic life?</p>
<p>I think that’s the basic difference. I’ve known for a fact a woman friend was cheating, a close friend, and she would NOT admit it to me. NO matter what. If a freind of my husband’s is cheating? He knows about it.</p>
The sexual marketplace is a ‘winner take all’ game. The alphas get all the action. Abolishing the concept of a relationship or marriage pretty much brings back the concept of harems, etc. The system of marriages/relationships is something which is far healthier than the alternative - single moms raising 3 kids from different fathers (seen that a few times) and other stupendously idiotic things.</p>
<p>^ From a biological point of view, humans are not a monogamous species. We’ve got sexual dimorphism and delayed sexual maturity on the male side of the species, traits that are not shared with animals in nature that mate for life…</p>
<p>EDIT: Evolutionarily speaking, that is. We evolved where one male pretty much gets everything, and all the other dudes have to make due with what they can. Depending on who you hang out with, this is still more or less the case.</p>
<p>Well there is a utility to being a parent. If you would only be a parent or have childrent simply because there is another person there, what does that say about being a parent in the first place? What does it also say if you’re only willing to be a parent if the children have to be of your own blood? Being a parent has a function, and if you can’t do it on your own then maybe you shouldn’t be having children in the first place. Would you buy a Bev Hills home or a luxury car when you can’t even afford it? Even if you wanted to(after knowing you can’t afford it), would you purposely go ahead and make a reasoned choice to have 3 kids on your own? If you do or want that for yourself, then be prepared for the consequences.</p>
<p>When you shift the system of values like marriage or committed relationships other things will shift. The happily ever after or the heteronormative structure of getting married, having a family, etc would be something different. You no longer will have “kids” or “idiotic people” making choices based on what there culture has fed them to believe of how they should live out their lives. I think a system where men and women are raised to value sex the same way, not in a certain delusion state of mind, not in a certain way that church and religion influences it, not in the “daugther value your body so that you won’t be labeled a sl<em>t, wh</em>re, etc”, will result in people making more reasoned choices(not ones based on emotions). Women will no longer be raised to think that sex should only come with a “certain individual” that can provide, that can give you all “these other utilties” that some/most women attach to sex.
At the current state, when there is more demand(on behalf of men) for sex from women(the shorter supply), this leads to men becoming clever about how they go about achieving the sex utility. I argue those who aren’t clever about how to get sex with no strings attached, usually end up settling, that or their socialization has really done a great job at thinking the status quo(get married, be comitted, etc) is the way to be. Otherwise, you either do something about your appearance, you learn to be charming, you accumulate a lot of money, or anything that men currently do just to attract women to having sex with them.
In addition to this, in a more open society or culture, where there is not attachments to things like sex, and people do it or fulfill it easily with out attaching things to just fulfilling a physical sensation, I argue that a lot of the current marketing(that often influences our desires and also socializes us) will no longer be able to use sexual appeal to attract us to the things they are marketing(and that also socialize us or define most’s desires). When Gisele Bundchen(or whoever) is no longer being used to defined the standard of beauty, or whoever for the male version, the current definition of an alpha male and female will cease to exists.
When the supply and demand for sex (for straights) is being fulfilled you won’t have men learning to be “charming” or do whatever they have to do just to get physical gratification from a woman. That “charm” or the emotional attention or what have you, that men currently give to some women, will reduce relationships or attachments with people who would make choices like having 3 kids from different fathers.</p>
<p>Actually, monogomy, or marriage is an invention of the patriarchical society which arose because men wanted to be certain they were raising thier own children…this is what created a culture which priveledged virginity in a woman. Marriage evolved as a part of a property value, not relationship value…</p>
<p>However, all things being equal, a man who is not charming, in a culture where monogomy or relationships are not available, is LESS likely to achieve a union with a woman. A lot less likely than he is right now…given that all the charming men who are currently in a relationship would actually be free.</p>
<p>I might have worded something above incorrectly when describing “charming” men in the current situation. Charming men don’t have to get into relationships or be monogomous if all they want is sex. Non-charming men tend to have to get into relationships just to have the sex part fulfilled. When the current situation is that where women don’t value sex for the sake of being physically and sexually fulfilled, and only value sex under set criteria then it benefits the non-charming man-as long as he’s willing to follow the current state of affairs, and is willing to play along with the “happily ever after” or choose(is it even a choice when so many don’t even know there is a choice?) to live the life their culture has dictated for them by embedding them with systems of beliefs. I argue, that once these non-charming men realize that they’re in a trap, that’s when you get the woman with 3 kids from different fathers, that or “charming” men know how easy it is to take advantage of a woman who has 3 kids because these women are still in the forever search for that “happily ever after”.</p>
<p>We humans pretend we control or destinies while in fact ninety-nine percent of human behavior is the result of genetic predisposition. Transcendent thoughts and observations supposing otherwise poses a serious threat to what we are comfortable with, and are ridiculed.</p>
<p>Unless, we are talking about married men fooling around with someone of the same sex (which no doubt happens in some small percentage of cases), then these 10% of women must be doing double duty in order to boost the men’s numbers up to 20%. </p>
<p>Heterosexual sex is a male:female obligate pairing. For a man to be cheating a woman also needs to be involved, so for a given population the percentage of cheaters between the sexes should be close to equal, unless like I said, a few energetic women are doing a lot of extra work on the women’s side of the equation.</p>
<p>I was just talking about this with my H this evening.
He is really boring in some areas, for instance- he would be happy with the same dinner every night and the same breakfast every morning- when we go to the cupcake place- he gets the same kind of cupcakes.
I used to make his lunch a hundred years ago until I went insane from the repetition.</p>
<p>I however- get bored- * really* easily. I need new sources of stimulation. So I mix it up a bit. Not saying I am unfaithful- but I do everything to make it different for me.
Still- I am basically the same- so I guess that is why even though H prefers * the same* he puts up with my need for different.</p>
<p>We all have things we would rather be doing at times- some of us are able to put those things in perspective if they are harmful to what we consider to be * our core self*.</p>
<p>However, I do feel as a " gender", men- in particular the " baby boomers", are pretty self indulgent- and are more likely to indulge their whims- especially when many were raised in the " boys will be boys" era.</p>
or the married men are cheating with an unmarried women … who in the case of one of my friends was waiting for the man (whoops I meant to say schmuck) to leave his wife as he promosed he would</p>
